Undoubtedly, my tirade against The Washington Post’s continuing series on the Hardest Hit has turned off some of my readers. In retrospect, the title, IT’S BIG GOVERNMENT, STUPID!, was ill-chosen. That is an angry, confrontational title. When I want my readers to think rationally, I too must think rationally. When I get angry, I defeat myself. Nonetheless, it is worth considering what caused my anger.
What are the authors of the Hardest Hit hit series trying to accomplish? Here is their explanation.
The Washington Post is examining the plight of low-wage workers, who have been hardest hit by both the ongoing economic downturn and the larger forces of the new economy. A national poll of 1,350 low-wage workers found that they have endured stagnant wages, pervasive job losses and growing fiscal uncertainty. Yet, most remain hopeful about the future.
After a story drawing a portrait of low-wage workers, the series will zoom in on the survey’s major findings over the coming weeks. (see here)
Sounds nice! How could I possibly object? As I see it, the Hardest Hit hit series is not designed to inform our decisions. Instead, it is designed to sway our feelings with statistics and anecdotal examples. The series’misuse of statistics abuses both the process of gathering and analyzing statistics. Worse, the series stereotypes the poor.
Let’s look at the foundation of the project, the statistical data (see here). How do they describe it?
The poll was conducted by telephone June 18 to July 7, among 1,350 randomly selected low-wage workers nationwide. Low-wage workers were defined as adults ages 18 to 64 working 30 or more hours a week, not self-employed and earned no more than $27,000 in 2007. This income threshold roughly corresponds with the bottom 40 percent of the country’s workforce in terms of wages. This group represents about 22 percent of the U.S. adult population. Interviews were conducted in English or Spanish and on traditional landline telephones or cell phones. The margin of sampling error for the full poll is plus or minus four percentage points. Error margins are larger for subgroups. Abt SRBI Inc. carried out the fieldwork. (from here)
Look at all the questions (here). Can you guess how many people refused to answer? What did those people think? Can you guess what is assumed about the opinions of those who refused to answer? Did everyone give honest answers? Well, guess all you want. In surveys like this, the calculation of the survey’s accuracy is purely based purely upon the size of the sample? The calculations for accuracy merely assume that the vast majority of answers are honest and accurately reflect the opinions of the targeted group. When a survey gets this complex, no one knows its accuracy. It is a poll about feelings. At best, such a poll turns feelings into numbers. Such a poll is good only for a foolish news story.
Consider how the Post is ”analyzing” the statistical data? This survey is suppose to tell us how the poor feel. If that is the case, then why do we need accompanying interviews with some the survey participants? Is that to help us personalize the data with sympathetic stereotypes? Will we then understand the terrible economic conditions our noble and steadfast poor are suffering?
Consider the source. The Washington Post is known for favoring the Democratic Party. Right before an election, the Washington Post comes up with an economic survey that deliberately focuses on the population with the least money and the least reason to be happy with the economy, the poor. Their survey includes questions like this little gem.
19. And compared with your personal financial situation when George W. Bush took office in January 2001, do you think your own situation has (improved) under bush’s presidency, (declined), or has it has stayed about the same? (from here)
Many of the questions in the survey assume Bush and the government have responsibly for the economy and the plight of the poor. Have you ever considered how alien such a foolish notion would have been to the people who wrote the Constitution? Until the Great Depression, the Federal Government did not run any welfare programs, and now, if the economy is not growing fast enough, we blame the president. Yet the enormous amounts of money we spend on welfare and “entitlement” programs constitute the greatest drag on our economy.
Logic dictates we need to reduce spending on welfare, particularly “entitlement” programs, but Democrats delight in such spending. That is why the Washington Post tries so hard bypass our reason and focuses on emotions. That is why the Post surveys the feelings of the poor and offers up noble stereotypes of the poor for our consideration. To garner votes for Democrats and to sell a few newspapers, the Post will milk our emotions and sympathy for all they are worth.
This post continues a thread. Previous posts in this thread include:
